Iraqi Sniper[Sensitive Pictures]

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

Nobody in this thread yet has refuted by Israeli made gun mount camera accusation and I await somebody to do this.

What's to refute? Any ape can mount a camcorder on an L bracket and bolt said L bracket to the stock of a rifle. I think any terrorist group with sufficient resources to build explosive devices has got the necessary technology to attach a handheld video recorder to a rifle.

I don't understand what makes you think that it's so hard to attach a camera to a gun?

Can you expand on that point a little, and help us to understand?

Why don't you do it and see for yourself how it works? It is a lot more complicated than you think.

There is a lot of considerations that you haven't even begun to consider in making a device like this work.

Even if its old iskander, that don't mean its useless to them.

As long as a weapon can shoot whit out being a danger to the shooter, it will always have a use, but when it come to sniping, it's whole different story.

As far as I remember M40A1 bolt/chamber is chrome-lined, but not the bore.

As soon as rust sets in and eats away at the bore, it's simply no longer a sniper rifle. Even if rust is removed, accuracy simply goes right out the window.

Barrel thickness helps round stability, but makes no difference if the bore is worn.

M-14s barrel is chrome lined by the way, and personally I'd take an M-14 over a burned M40A1 any time.

I'm not to familiar with the newer M40A1-3, and don't know if the new Schneider SS #73 barrel is fully lined, but in any case what we have here is not A1-3.

SVD is chrome-lined all the way through including the gas system, so they really last, and can be brought back to life.

Hell, insurgents are using old artillery shells for IEDs.

Use of mortar/artillery shells for IED goes back to WWI, nothing surprising here, but it has nothing to do with sniping.

Maybe they find the ammo useful for this weapon or that weapon.

Here's something about 7.62X54R ammo.

Lacquer sealed rounds are the most accurate. Sealant on the neck and the primer keeps out the humidity, thus increasing shot consistency.

The problem is that when shooting from bolt action Mosin, lacquer melts to the chamber, gets sticky and makes the extraction a nightmare.

When it comes to auto and semi-auto weapons such problems do not exist. Upon firing the lacquer cracks and gets blown own by the excess gasses upon ejection of the casing.

Furthermore, modern 7.62X54R ammo is steel cased. Steel casings are dark gray or dark brown in color.

What we see on the picture are brass rounds, not steel.

Right here is original Russian lacquered sealed, steel case 7.62X54R sniper round used in SVD.

www.gunsandammomag.com...

Russian Mosin rounds were in fact brass, but do to high war time demand most were not sealed, which also helped to assist smooth bolt action extraction.

Here's what a Russian Mosin 7.62X54R brass round made in 50-60s looks like;

www.sportsmansguide.com...

You can even zoom in and see up close that there is no lacquer ring on the neck.

Here are some more round types which generally match what we see on the picture of the takedown;

www.sportsmansguide.com...

www.sportsmansguide.com...

The problem here is that on the takedown picture Mosin 5-round stripper clips are clearly seen with brass X54R ammo, and unless a Mosin rifle was used to snipe, that ammo does not belong in the same picture.

Not to mention that the .308 M40A1 was not in the same picture with the ammo and other contents.

Watch right here;

www.youtube.com...

Time code:01:14

Proper, dark brown steel cased rounds for SVD, not brass rounds for Mosin.

Great links to the 7.62 x 54 rounds, love the zoom in and zoom out options.

Also, yes the ammo in video of this Juba dude also shows those same type of rounds starting at 1:10 time meant for the Dragunov SVD.

But lets go back to the rifle that you supposedly mentioned about Vietnam age rifle.



The camo looks lightly different, but you can tell by the color that its still the forest camo applied to the current m40a1 used by the USMC.



This is the one with that same camo with the Unertl 10X scope.

Now the first pic shows some gray color of the fiberglass where some of the paint had came off, for what reason I don't know. But you can see that the bottom pic it seems to be cleaned and apply with a different camo on the gray areas (possibly mossey oak forest color or something) that is different from the original. But as you can see some remains of the original paint showing dark green, light green and dark red, 3 different colors.

Heres another...



This pic was taken back in 2000 same camo. Does it mean anything? Don't know.

Why was the rifle not included in the pic, I do not know, maybe the Marines didn't feel like adding their baby as part of the evidence along with the insurgents' items.

As for the M-14s, there are ones that are used by the U.S. Army with many upgrades instead of the original M-14 and M-21. Before then, they had to deal with the old weapons they kept in storage using them in 2003, 2004, 2005 in Iraq, but now as of this year they have much improved rifles based on those old ones.

As for the Mosin stripper clips, I would like to know why its there. But then why was the M16 mag there as well, I see no M4 or M-16 weapon either with it, besides the M40a1 rifle. They seem to be keeping many things there. Iraq is being washed with weapons, even old ones like Sturmgewehr 44. Maybe the enemy sniper had the Mosin Nagant before getting his hands on the M40a1 and decided to use that weapon, while still leaving all those ammo hidden in those compartments that he may not need anymore.

[edit on 22-11-2006 by deltaboy]

[edit on 22-11-2006 by deltaboy]

[edit: resized image]
Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/23/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

Why don't you do it and see for yourself how it works? It is a lot more complicated than you think.

There is a lot of considerations that you haven't even begun to consider in making a device like this work.

Heck you can buy them at Cabelas...

www.cabelas.com...

Or again here...

dreamcatchercameras.com...

Just got to give you a warning though don't watch the video if you aren't a hunter...

But lets go back to the rifle that you supposedly mentioned about Vietnam age rifle

Not age deltaboy, era.

"Why would USMC snipers bring a Nam era rifle with a $40 scope to Iraq simply escapes me."

But as you can see some remains of the original paint showing dark green, light green and dark red, 3 different colors.

Since the floorplate is steel and not aluminum, it is coated with black rust resistant coat. What the pict shows is a rusty brown, or plain put, rust covered floorplate.

Since RGD-5s come both in green and brown, I can't say that the one on the pict is rusted, so again, the rifle is the only thing that's out of place.

This pic was taken back in 2000 same camo. Does it mean anything? Don't know.

I do. Abundant grass is pretty much it.

Iraq on the other hand is not much on greenery.

Snipers survival depends on how well he can blend with his environment. Sporting a disco green camo in Iraq is far from it.

This is what M40A1 looks like in Iraq.

USMC 1st Recon Battalion.

rhutch.smugmug.com...

This is what a prepped M-14/21 looks like in Iraq;

link

Airborne M14;

www.imageseek.com...

www.imageseek.com...

www.imageseek.com...

Old stock;

link

Camo M14 on CP, no scope (M92 on open thumb).

link

Why M14 on CP? Because M16s never did their job to begin with. A good M14 burst will go right through an engine block and taking it out.

M16A2 will just keep burping 3 bursts until empty while the car will keep rolling right on you.

Maybe the enemy sniper had the Mosin Nagant before getting his hands on the M40a1 and decided to use that weapon, while still leaving all those ammo hidden in those compartments that he may not need anymore.

Maybe a sniper feels sentimentally attached to his pet iguana and decides to bring it along.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but sniper hauls only what he needs, period. Everything else is a liability.

Here's an example.

Urban sniper in a shelled out building. Broken walls and concrete dust everywhere. Other then his load he got a sheet of folded gauze.

Why? Simple. When shooting from prone all that dust is kicked up by the muzzle blast, which immediately gives up the position.

Wet down the gauze, line the muzzle blast area, and your good.

For a sniper to bring over 70 rounds of crap ammo for the rifle he doesn't have, knowing that it's of the wrong caliber for the rifle he does have, and instead bringing only one round for it, is simply ridiculous.

I just picked up a K for some weekend practice, and I'm sure as heck not going to bring a slingshot to shoot it with.

Let's get real here.


[edit: shortened long links]

[edit on 11/23/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

I don't understand what makes you think that it's so hard to attach a camera to a gun?

Can you expand on that point a little, and help us to understand?

Only one thing is mounted on a sniper rifle, a scope, that's it.

Everything else will only throw of the balance.

Mounting a camcorder on a rifle will only result in its destruction by the recoil.

The type of imaging devices that can be mounted on a rifle can't have any moving parts like motors, recording heads, etc.

Night vision/thermal sights don't have auto focus/zoom lenses like camcorders do. Solid state is the only way to go.

Originally posted by iskander
Only one thing is mounted on a sniper rifle, a scope, that's it.

Everything else will only throw of the balance.

Mounting a camcorder on a rifle will only result in its destruction by the recoil.

The type of imaging devices that can be mounted on a rifle can't have any moving parts like motors, recording heads, etc.

Night vision/thermal sights don't have auto focus/zoom lenses like camcorders do. Solid state is the only way to go.

Well I'm happy to see that you understand the probable complexity of such a device and when you think about it it is not likely to be an insurgent weapon.

There are such things and I'm not entirely sure why but they must be used to training and as we see here for propaganda purposes.

Hmmm...

I guess you missed my post then?

There are such things and I'm not entirely sure why but they must be used to training and as we see here for propaganda purposes.

I'm not even sure what that meant.

Well Ramadi, where the Marines who were killed and their weapons and equipment were taken, is next to a river, actually on a river, the Euphrates River which there is abundant green there. Which would make sense to have the rifle colored as it is.

Its true that snipers tend to camouflage their rifle to blend with the environment.


There are pics of snipers with their rifles not painted that does not match with the environment. I even used one of the links you posted that shows an M-14 that is not painted.






Of course we can get other images of other enemy snipers that would show its really the enemy we captured or killed. Any discrepancies on these images?



Even if its not the M40a1 that this sniper used, I would still say that those two men killed were in fact insurgents, no matter the case about the rifle. If indeed it was planted the rifle would have been camouflage in desert would it not? Since its supposedly taken from the dead Marines?

I also like to add, about having other items as a liability, when you shoot from a car, you are not carrying around these bullets that does not fit your rifle, in fact you just leave it there, just like if you leave your stuff in your bedroom because you feel like you don't want to carry them around. Maybe this insurgent sniper was lazy to clean it out.





[edit on 22-11-2006 by deltaboy]

[edit on 22-11-2006 by deltaboy]


[edit: resized images]Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/23/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

I even used one of the links you posted that shows an M-14 that is not painted.

I marked those as "Old stock".

Any discrepancies on these images?

Nope. That mini-van looks like a real time hide, and contents match.

Even if its not the M40a1 that this sniper used, I would still say that those two men killed were in fact insurgents, no matter the case about the rifle.

I wouldn't because I just don't know for sure. They could have been scouts, or they could have been making a buck on the side by taping what they were told to. The article said that tapes showed video of UAVs, so who knows.

If indeed it was planted the rifle would have been camouflage in desert would it not? Since its supposedly taken from the dead Marines?

That's easy. The serial number was provided, and if it belongs to the rifle in question, all that can be traced. With out that info I won't be making any guesses about the rifles origin.

I also like to add, about having other items as a liability, when you shoot from a car, you are not carrying around these bullets that does not fit your rifle, in fact you just leave it there, just like if you leave your stuff in your bedroom because you feel like you don't want to carry them around.

No, a sniper hide is not like a bedroom, be it a car, roof top, or whatever else, and it's a bit hard for me to imagine somebody keeping a hand grenade in their car because they don't feel like taking it out.

Maybe this insurgent sniper was lazy to clean it out.

Well, whoever that guys was, if he couldn't figure out that he brought the wrong ammo, he sure was not a sniper, lazy or not.

Originally posted by iskander


I wouldn't because I just don't know for sure. They could have been scouts, or they could have been making a buck on the side by taping what they were told to. The article said that tapes showed video of UAVs, so who knows.

The article was mentioning AAVs. Not UAVs.

An additional sniper firefight video I had not seen before. The gamma is dark, though.

www.youtube.com...

I think this is the part when he ran out of ammo.